Engagdet (not a great SLR source of insight) expected this to be priced in the $2k+ range as it was an industry first. Cue giggling.

But even I am surprised with the $799 price including the hood.

I personally was expecting this to be coming in around $1,000-$1,200 even though it's APS-C only. A first is still a first, and I'm not convinced something is so easily 'priced out of APS-C user territory' with so many sports / wildlife guys plugging much more expensive glass on their 7Ds.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure? The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

Sigma is on fire right now with that 35mm F/1.4, so people are taking them more seriously. I still am bent out of shape that they are using whatever witchcraft they have on crop when full frame people would give their left nut for this -- where is the EF 24-50 F/2.2 for full frame?

It's all a question of image circle diameter and back focus length, and it's about time that crop camera users get to take full advantage of their smaller sensor and mirror.

You forgot, for a 1/3". And that's a F1.6 lens. I don't think you can compare that F1.6 lens on a 1/3 sensor to a F1.8 lens on a 1/1.6 sensor. That's F1.8 at almost twice the sensor area.

I thought my quote made it quite obvious that image circle and back focus determines what zoom ranges and apertures can be made, and of course these lenses won't work on a Canon SLR. Also, look at the zoom range of these lenses given their apertures!

What I tried to say was that as your image circle goes smaller you quickly get a lot more options regarding zoom range and max open aperture number. Looking at the current lens lineup for crop cameras, there is little difference in zoom range and max aperture number between full frame and crop lenses. This new Sigma lens seems to be the first one to break this pattern, and we should expect more in kind from various vendors hopefully soon.

Sigma is on fire right now with that 35mm F/1.4, so people are taking them more seriously. I still am bent out of shape that they are using whatever witchcraft they have on crop when full frame people would give their left nut for this -- where is the EF 24-50 F/2.2 for full frame?

I've not used 3rd party lenses before. How do they usually stack up against OEM? This is an interesting lens to me. Can't wait to read more reviews about it.

Generally, I avoid them, but the Sigma 35 F/1.4 is being widely regarded as a game changer for Sigma's future prospects. From Roger at LensRentals:

"It’s been a long time since a take was so easy. This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.

If you’re a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better (or maybe not, that’s a subjective call). If you need Image Stabilization, then the 35mm f/2 IS may be worthwhile. Otherwise, this is the 35mm lens.

Arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price."

That lens also won a rather odd fan-voted blinded study on best bokeh on DigitalRevTV -- they posted three shots without saying which lens was which (no EXIF data posted), and the fans chose the Sigma 35 over the Nikon and Canon.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure? The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

I can imagine that if Canon had come up with this first-of-kind lens, they would have priced it at $1800 easily

I don't want to invest further in aps-c, but if Sigma makes EF-M version of this lens, I would probably buy the lens and Canon EOS-M (hopefully next version) just for this lens, skipping the EF-M adapter.

As this lens doesn't suit my style of photography - I don't expect to purchase it (even though the price is very reasonable). However I do think many people will be happy to buy the lens at the price of $799 USD.

Well done Sigma... looking forward to more quality technology in the future.

Paul

Logged

I appreciate using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

Engagdet (not a great SLR source of insight) expected this to be priced in the $2k+ range as it was an industry first. Cue giggling.

But even I am surprised with the $799 price including the hood.

I personally was expecting this to be coming in around $1,000-$1,200 even though it's APS-C only. A first is still a first, and I'm not convinced something is so easily 'priced out of APS-C user territory' with so many sports / wildlife guys plugging much more expensive glass on their 7Ds.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure? The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

Sigma is on fire right now with that 35mm F/1.4, so people are taking them more seriously. I still am bent out of shape that they are using whatever witchcraft they have on crop when full frame people would give their left nut for this -- where is the EF 24-50 F/2.2 for full frame?

- A

Not too suprised about the price. Sigma has found a nice spot shy of 1k. If it were FF, then it'd be 2k or more, depending on it's peformance.

I do have a question about its design, though. It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added? If it is, does that imply that a fast FF zoom would be similar is size to a medium format lens?

Not too suprised about the price. Sigma has found a nice spot shy of 1k. If it were FF, then it'd be 2k or more, depending on it's peformance.

I do have a question about its design, though. It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added? If it is, does that imply that a fast FF zoom would be similar is size to a medium format lens?

You raise a fair question -- if Sigma made the ultrafast zoom for FF many in this forum would want, it likely would be a pickle jar of a lens. One might imagine it would be a standard zoom with the size and weight of the 70-200 F/2.8 IS.

Your analogy is a good one. I've tinkered briefly with the Leica medium format SLR and everything about it was comically large for obvious (huge sensor/ 'anti-crop') reasons. A lens like that on a FF SLR would be a major chore to lug around.

I do have a question about its design, though. It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?

You need a 1.55x speedbooster (telecompressor) to go from f2.8 to f1.8. If a 16-35/2.8 was fitted with a 1.55x telecompressor, it would become an APS-C 10.3-22.5/1.8.

A better match is a 24-70/2.8 with a 1.55x telecompressor. The nearest rival is another third party premium product, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC (just £20 and 15g more) - and that would make a 15.4-45/1.8 VC lens with the same telecompressor built in. Wider, longer, and image stabilised.

I do have a question about its design, though. It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?

You need a 1.55x speedbooster (telecompressor) to go from f2.8 to f1.8. If a 16-35/2.8 was fitted with a 1.55x telecompressor, it would become an APS-C 10.3-22.5/1.8.

A better match is a 24-70/2.8 with a 1.55x telecompressor. The nearest rival is another third party premium product, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC (just £20 and 15g more) - and that would make a 15.4-45/1.8 VC lens with the same telecompressor built in. Wider, longer, and image stabilised.

Yes, the 24-70 would be required, not the 16-35. Oddly enough, the 18-35 f/1.8 is similar in weight to Sigma's 24-70 but is about an inch longer than the S24-70, which I found curious, which was why I thought Sigma might have "built-in" the booster to get the fast lens for APS-C. Chop off the long and wide ends where zooms are typically weakest, optimize the optical formula slightly, and voila!